ORDER : Paresh Upadhyay, J. Challenge in this petition is made by the workman to the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Ahmedabad dated 13.05.2014 in Reference (ITC) No. 09 of 1999 (old) - Reference Order No. L- 12013/71/98 IR(B-II). The CGIT has rejected the reference. 2. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the punishment imposed by the respondent bank was harsh, and over and above withholding of increment, suspension period was treated to be suspension. It is submitted that, considering the totality, the Tribunal ought to have interfered in the matter, and the Tribunal having failed to do so, this Court may interfere. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Parikh, learned advocate for the respondent has taken this Court through the pleadings on record and has submitted that for proved misconduct punishment was imposed. It is submitted that the Tribunal has considered the matter at length. It is pointed out that initially, vide order dated 21.11.2002, the Tribunal found that departmental inquiry was not conducted properly, and thereafter the said exercise was undertaken before the Tribunal and thereafter final order is passed by the Tribunal refusing to interfere in the matter. It is submitted that no interference be made by this Court in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. It is submitted that this petition be dismissed. 4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds as under. 4.1 The petitioner is a workman of the respondent-bank. While he was working as a cash clerk, for proved misconduct, punishment of withholding one increment with cumulative effect was imposed by the Bank vide order dated 15.07.1997 (which is on record). The Tribunal has examined the matter from all angles and has not found any infirmity in the final punishment. The Tribunal had, before rejecting the reference framed the following issues. "(i) Is the reference maintainable? (ii) Whether the 2nd party Union/workman has valid cause of action to raise industrial dispute in this case? (iii) Whether the 1st party has been able to justify its action so taken against the workman Shri Mahesh G. Shah by conducting fresh inquiry before the Tribunal? "(i) Is the reference maintainable? (ii) Whether the 2nd party Union/workman has valid cause of action to raise industrial dispute in this case? (iii) Whether the 1st party has been able to justify its action so taken against the workman Shri Mahesh G. Shah by conducting fresh inquiry before the Tribunal? (iv) Whether imposing punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect by the Disciplinary Authority against the workman Shri M. Shah is proportionate to the gravity of misconduct as per charge sheet dated 19.05.1988? (v) What relief the concerned workman is entitled in this case? What directions are necessary in the matter? 4.2. On each of the above issues, the Tribunal has recorded its findings and final order is passed. This Court has considered the reasons recorded by the Tribunal and I find that the Tribunal has not committed any error by not interfering in the punishment order passed by the bank. No interference therefore is required. 4.3 One of the contentions is that suspension period is treated as suspension and thus there is double jeopardy. This contention needs to be rejected. It is the settled position of law that, if the workman is placed under suspension pending departmental inquiry, and if ultimately, he is found guilty and the punishment is imposed, as the necessary consequence the suspension would be treated as such. Therefore, on that count no interference is warranted. 4.4 Considering the totality, this Court finds that, no interference is required in this impugned award passed by the Tribunal. 5. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs. Writ Petition dismissed.